Why It's Smart To Oppose Bans Based On The No-Fly List!

[d-bone20917]

 

I'll be 60 this month and currently consider my occupation "Independently Wealthy".

 

 

So we have a 1 percenter on the forum?  Cool!

[The_Field_Ager]

He says "144 people with no id's landed at jfk airport." Not true, 

 

 

You're right, it was 150, as was reported at the time. Now apparently this was a misquote by JKF officials. The new number is that only 13 escaped the airport without having their details checked. We can breath easy:

 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection initially said 150 passengers coming from Cancun on American Airlines Flight 1671 left JFK on Friday night without proper scrutiny.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-passport-mistake-13-not-150-border-agency-article-1.2444928

 

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good mindless rant though, sure you won't?

Edited December 10, 2015 by Papist

[Mr VJP]

So we have a 1 percenter on the forum?  Cool!

 

Nah, 10% at best.

[Ford]

You're right, it was 150, as was reported at the time. Now apparently this was a misquote by JKF officials. The new number is that only 13 escaped the airport without having their details checked. We can breath easy:

 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-passport-mistake-13-not-150-border-agency-article-1.2444928

 

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good mindless rant though, sure you won't?

Ok, lets try again.

He said 144 people arrived at JFK with no ID's.

That is not true. And there is your "fact."

The airlines wont even board passengers with no ID.

[philoshop]

I never took a debate class so I guess I don't know the rules.  If something is difficult to solve I'll say so.  I think we all want the same thing in the end.   

 

My comment wasn't intended to be personal.

 

Some very bright people are working on solutions. Unfortunately, very few of them are currently in government service.

[The_Field_Ager]

He said 144 people arrived at JFK with no ID's.

That is not true. And there is your "fact."

 

 

 

Is anyone as disturbed by Fords total lack of concern that this event even took place in the manner it did? That 13 people are out there, walking about, totally unidentified? And for all we know the original story might be the true one, and that this 13 number is just ass-cover. Don't forget folks, this happened 2 days after the ISIS NYC video.

 

But no, Ford would rather spent his time worrying about a journalist misspeaking on the issue rather than see the big picture.

 

The Train is fine Ford, the train is fine.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Papist

[Five Seasons]

as an NRA member, gun owning, pro-gun citizen the downright refusal to listen to any sort of legislation at all has me embarrassed. I understand most of this comes from the "if you give an inch" mindset and I understand that. But it seems many of you would rather ban an entire religion than god forbid have a simple background check, fingerprints or stricter measures. Will this stop terrorist? not entirely. Will it catch a few unlucky people in it's net? probably. But will it help? I think so.

[Ford]

Is anyone as disturbed by Fords total lack of concern that this event even took place in the manner it did? That 13 people are out there, walking about, totally unidentified? And for all we know the original story might be the true one, and that this 13 number is just ass-cover. Don't forget folks, this happened 2 days after the ISIS NYC video.

 

But no, Ford would rather spent his time worrying about a journalist misspeaking on the issue rather than see the big picture.

 

The Train is fine Ford, the train is fine.

 

 

Why would you or anyone else be disturbed by my post? I never posted anything about the "event."

 

I was just giving you some friendly advice about posting anything from that kook Alex Jones.

[philoshop]

as an NRA member, gun owning, pro-gun citizen the downright refusal to listen to any sort of legislation at all has me embarrassed. I understand most of this comes from the "if you give an inch" mindset and I understand that. But it seems many of you would rather ban an entire religion than god forbid have a simple background check, fingerprints or stricter measures. Will this stop terrorist? not entirely. Will it catch a few unlucky people in it's net? probably. But will it help? I think so.

 

The "give an inch..." thing is very significant.

And the thought that it won't ever affect you personally, just because you're a law abiding hunter/sportsman is delusional.

 

There are people in government today who would like to see every citizen entirely disarmed. They're working hard toward that end.

They can't do it in one leap, and they know it it. It's an incremental war. Giving an inch is far too much.

 

I'm safe, and mostly happy, because I'm capable of protecting myself, and smart enough to live where gunfire is not currently necessary in my pursuit of happiness. Changing the rules at the end of the game doesn't sit well with me.

[Mr VJP]

as an NRA member, gun owning, pro-gun citizen the downright refusal to listen to any sort of legislation at all has me embarrassed. I understand most of this comes from the "if you give an inch" mindset and I understand that. But it seems many of you would rather ban an entire religion than god forbid have a simple background check, fingerprints or stricter measures. Will this stop terrorist? not entirely. Will it catch a few unlucky people in it's net? probably. But will it help? I think so.

 

What about the 10,000 gun control laws that already exist?  Why do we have any "gun violence" at all with so many laws?  Why are we not prosecuting criminals that violate these laws?  Why would anyone believe we only have 10,000 gun laws so we need more?  That's what is embarrassing.

 

What people don't seem to understand is, it has become very obvious to analytical minds, the gun control agenda is not designed to control crime.  It has become obvious it's main purpose is disarmament in order to foster government control.  It's goal is to ban as many gun owners as possible along with dissent and resistance.

 

Every single proposal being floated today has very dark effects on personal freedom and liberty.  That is why people object to their passage.  Not to mention, everyone admits none of these proposals will have any positive effect on the current situation.  They will have a huge negative effect on individual self defense though.  Does that sound like good legislation?  People who object don't believe it's good legislation.

 

Bad gun laws are bad for the country.  Will they help control the violence problem?  No.  

 

Will they help the folks who want big government, full control, defenseless subjects and criminal penalties if you resist?  Absolutely!

[Five Seasons]

The "give an inch..." thing is very significant.

And the thought that it won't ever affect you personally, just because you're a law abiding hunter/sportsman is delusional.

There are people in government today who would like to see every citizen entirely disarmed. They're working hard toward that end.

They can't do it in one leap, and they know it it. It's an incremental war. Giving an inch is far too much.

I'm safe, and mostly happy, because I'm capable of protecting myself, and smart enough to live where gunfire is not currently necessary in my pursuit of happiness. Changing the rules at the end of the game doesn't sit well with me.

I'm not disagreeing with what you said, however I'll ask a little more clearly.

What level of risk are you willing to accept from foreign or home grown terrorists just so you don't have to fill out some paperwork?

[Five Seasons]

Vjp, you're in a whole other world. I can't debate with you.

[philoshop]

I'm not disagreeing with what you said, however I'll ask a little more clearly.

What level of risk are you willing to accept from foreign or home grown terrorists just so you don't have to fill out some paperwork?

 

Absolutely none.

[philoshop]

The biggest threat to America today comes from Washington DC.

The Socialists, Communists, Enviro-nazis, gun-grabbers and alternative-lifestyle folks don't mean a damn thing until they get legislation passed to 'normalize' their views.

I'll keep working hard to thwart that.

"Never give an inch."

[philoshop]

I will never, ever, welcome people to this country who's greatest wish is to participate in it's destruction.

[The_Field_Ager]

I will never, ever, welcome people to this country who's greatest wish is to participate in it's destruction.

 

 

Amen. To think otherwise is a form of mental derangement.

[Mr VJP]

We also need to do something about American citizens who want to destroy Rule of Law, the US Constitution and the country as we know it today.

 

[Mr VJP]

Vjp, you're in a whole other world. I can't debate with you.

 

That's a great compliment, even if it wasn't meant to be.

[Five Seasons]

I will never, ever, welcome people to this country who's greatest wish is to participate in it's destruction.

 

lol. chances are your 4th generation meth cooking neighbor is just as hell bent on destruction. But he's a white christian so that makes it ok?

 

enviro-nazis? good lord you're now the 3rd musketeer with vjp and papist. God forbid a bunch of hunters and outdoorsman wish to help reduce pollution and protect the planet right? God forbid gun owners wouldn't want to help save their freedoms by introducing common sense legislation right? If you haven't noticed, you live in a state where a lot of your freedoms are already vanishing. So should you really keep doing what you're doing by just putting up a wall and pushing back ON EVERYTHING?

[Five Seasons]

That's a great compliment, even if it wasn't meant to be.

 

it wasn't meant to be an insult. Just a simple statement that there's no amount of typing or time spent that will ever allow you and I to see eye to eye. As a gun owning conservative, I'm actually on the side of you and the other 2 musketeers, I just think you hurt your cause by taking everything to an extreme.

 

[philoshop]

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." -- Barry Goldwater, 1964

[Mr VJP]

God forbid gun owners wouldn't want to help save their freedoms by introducing common sense legislation right? If you haven't noticed, you live in a state where a lot of your freedoms are already vanishing. So should you really keep doing what you're doing by just putting up a wall and pushing back ON EVERYTHING?

 

Belo, I believe a lot of our freedom has vanished, and society's violence has gotten worse, precisely because we allowed it to happen in the past.

 

There is no reason to believe the anti-gun opposition will ever stop demanding more "compromise" regarding gun control.  They will always ask for more restrictions until all "gun violence" ends.  What they fail to admit is places that have total gun bans prove violence, in general, always increases, because people are defenseless.

 

Why is it that so called "common sense" legislation can never be proven to actually accomplish any reduction in crime or violence?  Why would anyone support restrictions on freedom that will not benefit anyone?

 

We are not pushing back on everything.  We are pushing back on legislation that only reduces rights of responsible gun owners and leaves innocent people defenseless.  Calling it "common sense" is just the anti's tactic of marketing it to a gullible populace.

 

When we have over 10,000 gun laws already on the books, that are NOT being used to lock up violent people, there is no room for anyone to believe "common sense" has any place in the affairs of the anti gun agenda.

 

Edited December 14, 2015 by Mr VJP

[Five Seasons]

We are not pushing back on everything.  We are pushing back on legislation that only reduces rights of responsible gun owners and leaves innocent people defenseless.  Calling it "common sense" is just the anti's tactic of marketing it to a gullible populace.

 

ok, now we're getting somewhere. What needs to change that you're ok with? Because philo said nothing. But can we not agree that fearing you might be the next victim at work, movies, school or mall is not an option either?

 

[Mr VJP]

I edited my prior post a little.  What needs to change is enforcement of existing laws and re-directing "gun violence" efforts at those who have done violence with guns.

 

Nobody should be persecuted in America for anything they possess.  They should be prosecuted for what they do with what they possess.

 

Is gun control really about reducing crime?  Because the more guns they restrict, the more crime seems to escalate.

 

Or is it really about control?  Controlling citizens who are disarmed, which is something the founding fathers really feared, so much so they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution, along with other rights designed to keep freedom in the hands of the people, and away from evil minded, power hungry totalitarians.

 

Edited December 14, 2015 by Mr VJP

[Mr VJP]

Having grown up when the Cold War was waging, being told to fear nuclear war, I learned to calculate the odds of my demise, and also how to increase my odds of survival in case of attack.  Attacks can not be prevented by taking rights and freedoms from responsible citizens.

 

"The government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.

 

But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly.

 

Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. ... Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That's collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make. ... The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident.

 

It has no right to initiate force against the innocent.

 

And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force. Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished."

 

--columnist Harry Binswanger

 

The same goes for the "No Fly List".  When you are put on it after due process, you belong there and your rights can be limited.  When you are put on it because the government just doesn't like you, that's a BIG problem!

 

Edited December 14, 2015 by Mr VJP